Defense Alleges Gross Violation of Jurisdiction in the Case of Serhii Tarasov and Demands Transfer of Proceedings to the Kropyvnytskyi Court

In the case of agribusinessman Serhii Tarasov and the I&U Group holding, the defense has voiced allegations of deliberate violations by the prosecution. In case No. 757/6519/26-k, lawyers for the defendants stated what they described as a flagrant breach of the rules of territorial jurisdiction. The defense insists that the criminal proceedings were transferred to the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv in violation of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and should be heard in the Kirovohrad region.

 

The matter concerns criminal proceedings No. 42023000000000249 dated 17 February 2023 against a group of individuals accused of crimes under Part 5 of Article 191 and Part 3 of Article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. On 4 February 2026, the indictment in this case was submitted to the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv.

 

At the same time, the defense emphasizes that there are no lawful grounds for such a decision. Under Part 1 of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, criminal proceedings must be heard by the court at the place where the criminal offense was committed, and in the case of multiple episodes—at the place where the most serious offense was committed. Only if the place of commission cannot be established may the proceedings be heard by the court at the place where the pre-trial investigation was completed.

 

According to the defense, all alleged episodes without exception, including the most serious ones, took place in the city of Kropyvnytskyi and the Kirovohrad region. Therefore, the transfer of the case to the Pecherskyi District Court, the lawyers argue, directly violates Part 1 of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

 

The lawyers stress that this is not a technical error or a procedural misunderstanding.

 

“This is not a mistake but a conscious and gross disregard of the law. The situation cannot be explained in any other way than manipulation by the prosecution,” the defense stated.

 

In a motion submitted to the Supreme Court, the defense directly points to a “gross violation of the law” and, as they put it, manipulative actions by the pre-trial investigation authorities that resulted in the case being sent to a court lacking territorial jurisdiction over the alleged events.

 

The defense also claims that law enforcement officials overseeing the proceedings deliberately changed territorial jurisdiction out of fear of losing control over the process in the Kirovohrad region and therefore kept the case in Kyiv.

 

Under Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, if a criminal proceeding is submitted to a court in violation of jurisdictional rules, it must be mandatorily transferred to the competent court before the merits are considered.

 

“We demand that the case materials be retrieved from the Pecherskyi District Court and transferred to the District Court of the city of Kropyvnytskyi—the only court with lawful territorial jurisdiction in this proceeding. Any further consideration of the case by the Pecherskyi Court creates serious risks to the fairness of the process and violates the fundamental guarantees provided by the Criminal Procedure Code,” the lawyers emphasized during the hearing.

 

Legal counsel also described the situation as “an attempt to influence the course of the proceedings by choosing a convenient jurisdiction.”

The defendant, agribusinessman Serhii Tarasov, also commented on the course of the case.

 

“The pre-trial investigations in all the mentioned criminal proceedings are overtly commissioned and have a raider nature. My criminal prosecution was initiated by one of the senior officials of the Office of the President and carried out under the supervision of the National Police of Ukraine,” he said.

 

According to Tarasov, these proceedings pursued two specific goals: a raider takeover of his property—including land plots and the I&U Group agribusiness holding—and continued pressure on his business.

 

He further stated that the initiator of the criminal prosecution was Deputy Head of the Office of the President Oleh Tatarov, and their implementation is monitored by certain National Police officials.

 

“Since law enforcement agencies failed to achieve their true objective—seizing my property—they continue to exert pressure on me and my business, trying to carry their plan through to the end,” Tarasov said.

At present, the further progress of the case depends on the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the defense’s motion to change territorial jurisdiction. The lawyers insist that only transferring the proceedings to the Kropyvnytskyi court can ensure compliance with the law and the basic guarantees of a fair trial.

 

Vadim Ivanovych Vlasenko</div